# NFL 2006 Weekly Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 10, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120 "2006-09-10T03:07:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/81 "2006-10-02T13:27:53Z")
**Omni** , let me guess – your team won, right? Actually, I watched a good bit of that game, until it became meaningless. Your boy Grossman – wow. But in a way it was a little disappointing that both those clash-of-titans games (NE v Cincinnati, Chi v Seattle) turned out like, well, the Titans game. I prefer some fourth-quarter drama, and there was none. Speaking of which, did anyone catch the ending to the Jets-Indy game? I’ve never seen a more enjoyable play than the one that ended the game. Why don’t we see more of that in late-game desperation situations? It’s clearly not the worst thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/82 "2006-10-02T14:55:29Z")
That game was awesome. There was pressure on the Seahawks QBs all game long and I don’t think the Bears blitzed more than 3 times all game, and maybe not at all in the second half. Just a dominating showing. Grossman looked fantastic for the 4th straight week. The real question is what the hell was going on in preseason? Whatever that intangible thing that winning QBs have is, Rex has it in spades. I said it in the offseason and I’ll say it again, we really need to get better on special teams. We’ve made huge strides over last season when we were awful. Statistically we’re great this season, but you can see that there’s too many chances for catastrophe on every kick. Hard to fault a guy for being aggressive, but with a dominating defense you can’t risk giving the ball away and sacrificing field position trying for a homerun play. How about Tommy Harris? ---
**Author:** ![Kiros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/439d5e/32.png) [@Kiros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiros)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/83 "2006-10-02T16:25:42Z")
Thank you, Mr. Maroney, for showing me that even in times of doubt, I have reason to keep the faith. The Bears-Seahawks game was definitely the disappointment of the night for those of us not in Chicago… there was a certain lack of, well, competition, in a game that had so much promise of it 🙂 Also, Darrell Jackson probably would have caught more passes if mean Tommy Harris had left Mr. Hasselbeck alone! Here’s to McNabb scoring less than 20 fantasy points tonight, please. Loved the play at the end of the Jets-Indy game… really wish the guy hadn’t run the kickoff back for the TD, but instead ran it back to the 40, where Pennington could have led a nice time-consuming drive in for the score. Stupid Colts. Also, Baltimore really surprised me with a great effort yesterday. They can actually grind out a win against a quality team with McNair, it seems, something that has been sorely lacking the last couple of years for the Ravens. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/84 "2006-10-03T14:05:36Z")
**Week 4** _Early Games_ _31_ \*\*Colts…9…\*\*_28_ \*\*JETS…\*\*_59_ \*\*46½…\*\*_Colts give Gang Green a reality check. Over_ _13_ \*\*Chargers…2½.\*\*_16_ \*\*RAVENS…\*\*_29_ \*\*33½…\*\*_Ravens manhandle Rivers. Under_ _17_ \*\*BILLS…1…\*\*_12_ \*\*Vikings…\*\*_29_ \*\*34½…\*\*_Billies to rebound. Way over._ _45_ \*\*Cowboys…9½.\*\*_14_ \*\*TITANS…\*\*_59_ \*\*37½…\*\*_Cowboys rally around TO, covering the over._ _41_ \*\*CHIEFS…7…\*\*_0_ \*\*49ers…\*\*_41_ \*\*40…\*\*_Herm so inept, 49ers could win outright. Over_ _21_ \*\*PANTHERS…7½.\*\*_18_ \*\*Saints…\*\*_39_ \*\*42½…\*\*_Saints cover, if not win outright. Under_ _32_ \*\*FALCONS…7…\*\*_10_ \*\*Cards…\*\*_42_ \*\*40…\*\*_Falcons, against my better judgement. Under_ _15_ \*\*Dolphins…4…\*\*_17_ \*\*TEXANS…\*\*_32_ \*\*38½…\*\*_Texans get their first win. Under_ _Late Games_ _41_ \*\*RAMS…5½.\*\*_34_ \*\*Lions…\*\*_75_ \*\*43½…\*\*_Lions cover the points because it stays under._ _13_ \*\*BENGALS…6…\*\*_38_ \*\*Patriots.\*\*_51_ \*\*45½…\*\*_Patriots don’t lose two in a row, so this goes over._ _30_ \*\*Jaguars…2½.\*\*_36_ \*\*REDSKINS.\*\*_66_ \*\*34…\*\*_Jaguars too good. Lightning the under._ _24_ \*\*Browns…2½.\*\*_21_ \*\*RAIDERS…\*\*_45_ \*\*34…\*\*_Imagine having to watch this pig. Browns, over._ _Night Games_ _37_ \*\*BEARS…3½…\*\*_6_ \*\*Seahawks.\*\*_43_ \*\*34½…\*\*_Bears make a statement here. Way over._ _31_ \*\*EAGLES…11…\*\*_9_ \*\*Packers…\*\*_40_ \*\*47½…\*\*_Which Favre, good or evil? Packers and the over._ Spread Picker Picks 6 Panthers _Loss_ 4 Cards _Loss_ 4 Patriots **WIN** 3 Redskins **WIN** 2 Bills **WIN** 2 Lions _Loss_ 2 Packers _Loss_ 1 Chiefs **WIN** 1 Jets **WIN** 1 Raiders _Loss_ 1 Ravens **WIN** 1 Titans _Loss_ Stupid spread picker got killed on its best bets, and barely managed to break even going 6-6 overall. I, on the other hand, had a fantastic early run going 12-4 at 1:00, then coasted the rest of the way splitting the afternoon games at 4-4 and the night games at 2-2. Overall, 18-10 for the week, meaning that I blew the doors off the spread picker. So what was I thinking booking a spread picker bet? Early Games Risk 30 to win 125 on the **Panthers, Cards and Patriots**. (Pats are late.) Risk 55 to win 50 on a 3-team tease: **Colts** giving 1, **Cowboys** giving 1½, **Eagles** giving 2. (Eagles on MNF.) Stupid spread picker sunk me into a -30 hole right off the bat. Oh well, the tease stayed alive for MNF. Late Games Risk 55 to win 50 on the **Jaguars / Redskins Under**. Yeah, I believe I described this one as “lightning the under” in the picks section. Damn good thing I didn’t do that, eh? Not a good week so far, already down -85. Sunday Night Risk 30 to win 60 on the **Bears & the Over**. Go Bears! Way to win convincingly. What, did the Seahawks owe you money? Wow. The 60 here helped quite a bit; now down only 25 with the tease still alive. Monday Night Risk 30 to win 25 on the **Packers**. Turns out that Evil Favre took the field. Oh well, that means the tease covered, so that 50 minus this 30 adds 20 to the total, so the grand total for this week is -5. I can live with that. Standings This week: 18-10, -5 Season: 64-53-1, +50 (+13 per week) Spread Picker: 13-16; Best Bets: 2-2 Against the Spread 4-0 Saints 3-1 Bears 3-1 Bengals 3-1 Bills 3-1 Eagles 3-1 Falcons 3-1 Jets 3-1 Rams 3-1 Ravens 3-1 Vikings 2-1 Chargers 2-1 Chiefs 2-1-1 Colts 2-1 Cowboys 2-1-1 Jaguars 2-2 Browns 2-2 49ers 2-2 Patriots 2-2 Redskins 2-2 Seahawks 1-2 Broncos 1-2 Bucs 1-2 Giants 1-2 Steelers 1-3 Lions 1-3 Packers 1-3 Texans 1-3 Titans 0-3 Raiders 0-4 Cardinals 0-4 Dolphins 0-4 Panthers ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/85 "2006-10-06T20:23:56Z")
**Week 5 Picks** _Early Games_ 1:00pm…\*\*GIANTS…4½…Redskins…45…\*\*_4½?! Hmmm. Giants and the over?_ 1:00pm…\*\*COLTS…18…Titans…48…\*\*_Titans and the under._ 1:00pm…\*\*VIKINGS…6½…Lions…40…\*\*_Vikings all over this. Over._ 1:00pm…\*\*SAINTS…6½…Bucs…35…\*\*_Saints have a QB, unlike the Bucs. Over._ 1:00pm…\*\*Rams…3…PACKERS…47…\*\*_Packers for the last time. Under._ 1:00pm…\*\*PATRIOTS…9½…Dolphins…37…\*\*_Patriots should cover easily. Over._ 1:00pm…\*\*BEARS…10…Bills…34…\*\*_Billies could actually win outright. Over._ 1:00pm…\*\*PANTHERS…8…Browns…37½…\*\*_I smell an upset. Browns and the over._ 4:05pm…\*\*JAGUARS…7…Jets…37…\*\*_Jets gaining some momentum. Over._ 4:05pm…\*\*Chiefs…3½…CARDS…39…\*\*_Can’t go against Chiefs after last week. Under._ 4:05pm…\*\*49ERS…3½…Raiders…40…\*\*_Yuck. 49ers I guess. Mortal lock on the under._ 4:15pm…\*\*EAGLES…2…Cowboys…44…\*\*_Cowboys are the better team. Over._ 8:15pm…\*\*CHARGERS…3½…Steelers…37½…\*\*_Steelers bounce back. Under._ 8:30pm…\*\*BRONCOS…4…Ravens…33…\*\*_Ravens keep rolling. Over._ Spread Picker Picks 5 Bucs 5 Cardinals 4 Dolphins 4 Lions 4 Packers 4 Panthers 3 Broncos 3 Raiders 3 Titans 2 Steelers 1 Cowboys 1 Giants 1 Jaguars My faith in the spread picker has certainly taken a hit so far this season. Until it earns back my respect, I’ll mostly be ignoring it for selection purposes. Unfortunately, I really really don’t like the games this week. That’s going to translate into hedge-city, with more penny-ante teases than you can shake a stick at. Early Games Risk 30 for 25 on a 3-team tease: **Saints** getting 1½, **Vikings** getting 1½, **Patriots** giving 1½. Risk 30 for 25 on a 3-team tease: **Giants** getting 3½, **Colts** giving 10, **Bills** getting 18. Late Games Night tease: Risk 30 for 25 on a 3-team tease: the **Jets** getting 15, **Steelers** getting 11½, **Ravens** getting 12. Risk 30 for 25 on the **Bay Area Under** Sunday Night If Night Tease lost, risk 30 for 25 on the **Under**. Monday Night If Night Tease lost, risk 30 for 25 on the **Over**. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2006, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/86 "2006-10-07T01:09:19Z")
Gah. The lions make me want to play soccer. They’re gonna win this year, right? I mean, is this the Brady Quinn sweepstakes we’re in? If so, why in the fuck didn’t they tell me? I wasn’t around in 1957. They need to win a championship before I die. I’ll be SERIOUSLY fucking pissed if I’m dead. I’m SO haunting someone. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/87 "2006-10-08T02:39:04Z")
Last week’s results for my imaginary sports betting adventure: 1. win, +70 2. win, +50 3. Loss, -55 4. win, +25 5. loss, -25 6. loss, -10 Net, +55, so $500 to $555 There’s not on bet this week that I really like. The Browns could upset carolina, if Leigh Bodden plays. If he doesn’t, however, we’ve got Steve Smith, Meshawn Johnson, and Drew Carter going up against I believe our 4th, 6th, and 7th corners, in which case Carolina scores 200. The Colts could easily win a 21-10 type game against Houston, but they tend to run up the score, so… I’m gonna list them by the amount won. If it’s a loss, it’s the amount + 10%. 1. 30 on Colts -18 (yikes, I hate the idea of giving 18 points) 2. 30 on parlay with Colts -18 and over 48 (if the colts have to win by 18, it seems natural to take the over. 3. 30 on giants/redskins over 45 4. 30 on saints -6.5 (bucs suck) 5. 30 Browns +8 (mostly homer pick, but the browns tend to play hard against teams they’re supposed to lose to, and lay turds against teams they’re supposed to beat) 6. 30 parlay broncos -4 and over 33. Someone has to show the league that the ravens aren’t real - a non-schottenheimer team could’ve done so last week. 7. 30 Patriots -9.5 over Miami 8. 10 on my lottery pick for the week - Colts, colts over, browns, broncos/ravens over, patriots. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/88 "2006-10-08T02:53:53Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] The Colts could easily win a 21-10 type game against Houston, but they tend to run up the score, so… [/quote] Tennessee. I would normally say same difference, but the Texans can actually score points, whereas the Titans can only stomp on people’s faces while they get blown out. Who knows, though, maybe that ugliness will rally the team. Yeah, right. > [@](#): > > I’m gonna list them by the amount won. If it’s a loss, it’s the amount + 10%. Did you mean amount risked, using my 30 for 25 style? I ask because your parlays and straight bets are all listed as 30, and if you actually mean amount won, that puts your parlays at 12.50, which would be unusual. And simply because I can’t let it go without comment…there’s teams the Browns are supposed to beat? Really? hehheh. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/89 "2006-10-08T03:24:24Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Tennessee. I would normally say same difference, but the Texans can actually score points, whereas the Titans can only stomp on people’s faces while they get blown out. Who knows, though, maybe that ugliness will rally the team. Yeah, right. [/quote] Ooops. I guess I got mixed up, what with the divisional opponents who act as stats padders for peyton manning connection. I have Manning, Harrison, and Addai on my fantasy team - and 4 weeks against the Texans or Houston. My Colts strategy is gonna pay off. Although I have slightly more confidence in Tennessee to keep the score low. Maybe I should rethink them. > [@](#): > > Did you mean amount risked, using my 30 for 25 style? I ask because your parlays and straight bets are all listed as 30, and if you actually mean amount won, that puts your parlays at 12.50, which would be unusual. I like the idea of keeping it consistently at 10%, otherwise 25+5 bets become big losers compared to 50+5. I was just gonna do win 30, or lose 33 for the straight bets. I did goof though - because parlays don’t with that notation. I meant risk 33 to win 30 on the straight bets, but I also meant risk 30 to win 84 (14-5) on the parlays. Even though it’s inconsistent, it’s simple/quick/intuitive for me to list them that way. I’ll grade them appropriately. > [@](#): > > And simply because I can’t let it go without comment…there’s teams the Browns are supposed to beat? Really? > > hehheh. This year, only the Raiders. Take last year for example - Jacksonville and Cincinatti barely squeaked by on last second field goals, but the Texans and Lions beat us. In those examples, we lost them anyway, but it demonstrates that we play better against better teams usually. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/90 "2006-10-08T03:53:41Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] I like the idea of keeping it consistently at 10%, otherwise 25+5 bets become big losers compared to 50+5. I was just gonna do win 30, or lose 33 for the straight bets. I did goof though - because parlays don’t with that notation. I meant risk 33 to win 30 on the straight bets, but I also meant risk 30 to win 84 (14-5) on the parlays. Even though it’s inconsistent, it’s simple/quick/intuitive for me to list them that way. I’ll grade them appropriately. [/QUOTE] That’s cool, just checking. As for the Texans-Titans connections, don’t forget that the Titans used to be the Houston Oilers. Man, what did Houston ever do to deserve such shit-eating NFL franchises? The worst part is that pretty much as soon as the Oilers moved to Tennessee, they became a powerhouse: Superbowl appearance in 99, #1 ranked defense (ahead of the Ravens) in 2000, and continued to be good, even winning the division over the Colts in the inaugural realignment season of 2002. Come to think of it, the Ravens won the Superbowl shortly after leaving Cleveland, who still have never won an NFL championship. That had to hurt big time. There must be something to getting a fresh start. Hmmm. Maybe the Raiders should pull up stakes and become the Los Angeles Stars next year in order to become good again. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/91 "2006-10-08T09:27:19Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Come to think of it, the Ravens won the Superbowl shortly after leaving Cleveland, who still have never won an NFL championship. [/QUOTE] The Browns have won 4 NFL championships (and a few more in the AAFL before that), and appeared in 11 more… but when they won was before the mega-marketing superbowl term came into play. The superbowl actually wasn’t the nfl championship for the first 4 years of its existance - the champions of the NFL and AFL, two seperate leagues, played. From 1966-70, you could be the NFL champion and yet lose the superbowl. Anyway, after some consideration after my mixup, I want to change bet #1 to Pats/Fins over 37. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/92 "2006-10-08T11:50:23Z")
I had a unexpectedly solid week this week. Considering how many risks I took with big spreads and road teams the 8-6 mark ATS is a victory. Strangely almost every time I was correct about the spread I was wrong on the O/U, what’s that say about my picking ability? The 6-8 mark versus the O/U is good enough to keep me 5 games over .500. Not so lucky on the OMNI- picks after a second 1-4 week pulls me to 10-10 even. Let’s check out this weeks games. There’s a whole pile of home favorites and a mess of half point spreads. I think I’m primed for a big week. Sunday **INDIANAPOLIS 18½ Tennessee 48** Vince Young starting in that loud dome versus a good but banged up defense. The Colts had a scare last week and I’m betting they will be very focused here. The Titans are really soft against the run without Haynesworth and that will allow the Colts to be balanced and effective on 1st down. That spread is huge but the Titans are awful and Vince Young at QB only makes them worse. There’s no way the Titans defense will be getting off the field except after a Indy TD. It’s going to look like a Texas-Rice game or something. The Pick: **Colts, Under** **N.Y. GIANTS 5 Washington 45½** I have no idea what is going on with either one of these teams. I’m inclined to trust the Giants more than the Redskins, especially at home, but the players calling out the coach last week worries me. The Giants are off a bye week which should have them prepared and focused. Of course Al Saunders system looks like it’s finally working and if they were stumped by the Seahawks this will be no easier. The Redskins don’t have the Seattle defense though so Shockey and co. might not be so stumped here. Whatever. I’m flipping a coin here. I think since I’m going to go with a bunch of home teams I’ll go with a road team just for variety on this one (plus I like getting points). The Pick: **Redskins, Over** **MINNESOTA 6½ Detroit 40½** To quote Bill Simmons, it’s the resistible force against the movable object. In other words, the limp Minny offense against the toothless Lions D in the hump-dome. In contrast the Vikes D matches up pretty well against a Lions passing game with potential. I like both matchups for the home team here, I’m confident that the Vikings offense will score points and I think their DBs will force turnovers and frustration from the Kitties passing game. Neither running game will perform, so I like the over. No way the Lions get that first W on the road in a loud dome. The Pick: **Vikings, Over** **NEW ORLEANS 6½ Tampa Bay 35** Rookie QB on the road in an amp’d up environment…this one is too easy. This Bucs team is slowing down on defense and really lost on offense. Gradkowski is going to take a beating. I said before the season that the Saints weren’t a team lacking for talent. The fast start proves it and this is exactly the kind of game were Reggie Bush could break out. The Pick: **Saints, Under** **St. Louis 2½ GREEN BAY 47** This is a tough game to call. The Rams have been playing decent but the trouble in the redzone worries me. So far their offense has struggled on the road and this trip to Lambeau will be a new experience for them. The Packers defense isn’t strong enough to completely stop them though so we’ll have to ask if Favre will be able to out do Bulger in a shoot out. The Packers will be without Ferguson and Green it appears and Driver is dinged up. Favre will certainly play but the beating he’s taking appears to be catching up with him. I don’t love the Rams in this one, but the Packers situation just looks bleak right now. I’m heartbroken I tells ya! The Pick: **Rams, Under** **NEW ENGLAND 9½ Miami 37** This one is a no-brainer. The real question is if Maroney will score enough points to lift me to my first fantasy win of the season in my money league. I benched McGahee in favor of this match-up so I’m optimistic. Culpepper is questionable and it’s sounding like Saban is going to use a “injury” as an excuse to give the ball to Harrington. If Harrington plays well he’ll keep him, if not Culpepper will magically be “healthy” next week. In either scenario the Pats defense will clean house. The Pick: **Patriots, Over** **CHICAGO 10 Buffalo 34½** I said it before and I’ll say it again, 10 points feels like too many for the Bears. I guess I’m still gunshy after decades of inept offenses and close games. I’m not picking the Bills though, the football gods would punish me for such a violation I’m sure. The Bills have a knack for keeping things close against good competition and their offense has shown flashes. These Bears know Jauron and will be eager to give him a whuppin’, and he’ll play it too safe against superior talent. Hoping for another big day from TJ. The Pick: **Bears, Over** **CAROLINA 7½ Cleveland 37½** Why do I have this gut feeling the Browns are going to surprise us? Each week I think they’ll finally break out. The offense is putting up good numbers, Frye, Winslow and Edwards are all near the top of their fantasy positions. Even with a struggling O-line and defensive secondary you’d think they’d score more points. Well, I’m not going to let myself get burned again here. Steve Smith is going to devour this Browns backfield and the Panthers will get healthy at home this week. The Pick: **Panthers, Under** **JACKSONVILLE 6½ N.Y. Jets 37** I’m surprised this spread is so big after last weeks games respectively. The Jets aren’t the dog everyone projected and the Jags looked pretty vulnerable. I’m going to call last week a trap game for the Jags and dismiss it. That loss will refocus this defense and the Jags will shut down this Jets offense in all facets. No way the Jets gain 60 yards rushing and the Jags WRs match up very well against gang green’s DBs. The Pick: **Jags, Under** **Kansas City 3½ ARIZONA 39½** OK, the Chiefs really made me look stupid last week. I’m not sure I expect them to repeat that performance. Then Denny green announces Leinart as the starter this week so I’m left to choose between Huard and a rookie starting his first game. The media would love Leinart to have a huge day and based on his preseason performance it’s not too hard to imagine. He looked pretty hopeless last week but that was against an aggressive Falcons defense playing with a big lead. I’m not sure either is a fair measure of what to expect from him. KC had a bye week prior to last week and it might have played a role in their ability dominate. Really, I have no idea what to make of this game. Lets go chalk. The Pick: **Chiefs, Over** **SAN FRANCISCO 3½ Oakland 40** I think this game is going to be a blowout. Everyone is gunshy about the Niners following last weeks rout but I’m guessing KC just caught lightning in a bottle. Oakland is just terrible in all facets and should be a 10 point dog to everyone in the league. Until they do something to impress me I’m never picking them. The Pick: [n]Niners, Over\*\* **PHILADELPHIA 2 Dallas 44** TO comes to town and there’ll be plenty of drama surrounding this game. You’ve got to ask if either team will be distracted by the situation. The Cowboys haven’t shown any indication of being effected by TO and the media so far and the Eagles have had plenty of practice being in the spot light. I’m almost inclined to think the Eagles are in a tougher situation just because the fans and players want this victory so badly. On the field the Eagles are missing several key components, at full strength I think they’d hassle Bledsoe enough to shut down the Cowboys offense, especially at the Linc, but losses on the line and secondary will help him stay vertical. The Eagles still lack a strong running attack and can’t do anything between the tackles. Parcells is smart enough to exploit that and make them one dimensional and the Cowboy D is talented enough to contain a predictable attack. The Pick: **Cowboys, Under** **SAN DIEGO 3½ Pittsburgh 37** For my fantasy teams sake I hope the Steelers get right this week but aside from that there aren’t a whole lot of reasons to expect good things here. That Charger defense is nasty, especially against the run, and Big Ben has looked downright hopeless. Rivers could have trouble facing the Steelers D for the first time but LDT and co will go a long ways to helping him cope. Willie Parker won’t be able to prop up that offense and I fear we’re in for another week of Ben’s INTs. I’ll be low scoring and won’t be a blow out but this San Diego team is the class of the AFC. The Pick: **Chargers, Under** Monday **DENVER 4 Baltimore 33** I haven’t liked what I’ve seen from McNair so far. He’s done just enough to keep this team in the win column but he’s also made enough mistakes to make these games close. That defense will always give them a chance but he’ll turn in a stinker sooner or later. I think he gets beaten up this week at Mile High and their running game will disappear. The Broncos will have trouble of their own, but so long as Plummer doesn’t fall behind Shanahan will be able to be cautious and count on his defense to create opportunities. The Pick: **Broncos, Over** ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/93 "2006-10-08T20:26:28Z")
:smack: :smack: ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/94 "2006-10-08T23:18:23Z")
Trailing 20-9, with a spread of 8 to 8.5, with like 15 seconds left on the clock, the Browns elected to kick a field goal from the 20 or so. I’ve never before seen an NFL team so blatantly try to cover the spread. I wonder what the hell was up with that. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/95 "2006-10-09T00:27:05Z")
Heading into the night games every single favorite won their game. Not all covered but it was a smart week to go chalk. If anyone was gambling the money line this week you made some serious coin on the home favorites. I’m sitting pretty comfortably at 7-5 both ATS and versus the O/U. I forgot to post my OMNI picks but I did have them decided before the games. They were supposed to be **Pats, Niners, Saints, Vikes** and **Jags**. Luckily there’s no money on the line so you can just take my word for it. Though a asterisk is probably in order for this week. I went 4-1 with those picks. We’ve got two interesting match-ups left and I’m insured another .500 week at least. Frankly I like my chances to get them both right though. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/96 "2006-10-09T01:37:06Z")
[QUOTE=Omniscient] I forgot to post my OMNI picks but I did have them decided before the games. They were supposed to be **Pats, Niners, Saints, Vikes** and **Jags**. Luckily there’s no money on the line so you can just take my word for it. Though a asterisk is probably in order for this week. I went 4-1 with those picks. [/QUOTE] No asterisk needed. Like **SenorBeef** , I got asspounded on my action, despite the fact that I have a winning record so far this week. It never ceases to amaze me how much harder it is to do well on action than it is to just pick all the games. If we consider your OMNI picks to be your action, (5 straight bets for equal amounts each week,) you would either be +95, +47.5, or +20 depending on whichever rules you wanted to go by. In any case, that’s a damn fine showing; just being in the plus column after 5 weeks is no small feat. I’m amazed that I’m doing as well as I am, though I could easily by down 75 by the end of this week. Still, since I (almost) always put action on all the timeslots even if I don’t like the night games, plus the fact that I use 20% vigs on the pussy bets, I’m pleased with where I am so far. Those handicaps aren’t trivial. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Trailing 20-9, with a spread of 8 to 8.5, with like 15 seconds left on the clock, the Browns elected to kick a field goal from the 20 or so. > > I’ve never before seen an NFL team so blatantly try to cover the spread. I wonder what the hell was up with that. They actually did that?! ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/97 "2006-10-09T03:13:38Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Trailing 20-9, with a spread of 8 to 8.5, with like 15 seconds left on the clock, the Browns elected to kick a field goal from the 20 or so. I’ve never before seen an NFL team so blatantly try to cover the spread. I wonder what the hell was up with that. [/QUOTE] I didn’t see the game or the play in question but it sounds like the smart play to me. Often teams down by two possessions insist on trying to get the TD with the first possession even as time runs down. This is patently stupid just as any good Madden player knows. The smart way to handle the situation is to kick the FG as soon as you are in range and then try and recover the onside kick and complete a hail mary for the final play. If your estimation of the time remaining is correct it sounds like the Browns did a bad job of it, but it’s a logically sound decision so long as they left enough time for a kick and one play. Going for the end zone would have been dumber because kicking the FG after the onside kick requires an extra play and an extra TO you usually don’t have. I’m going to assume this isn’t a spread covering play. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/98 "2006-10-09T06:02:14Z")
Question. They say the ground can’t cause a fumble, but that’s simplistic and untrue, right? If a guy is getting tackled, the ground can’t cause a fumble because when he hits, he’s down. But if a guy just falls over, without being touched, and he fumbles when his arm hits the ground, that’s a fumble, right? The Panthers muffled a fumble like that today. The guy just fell forward and lost the ball without being touched. The Browns recovered. It was ruled a fumble on the field. They reviewed the play - as far I can see, that’s exactly what happened, there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call because there was _no evidence at all_, and yet a crucial turnover (I think it was 14-9, and we’d have gotten the ball at their 20 or so, could’ve turned the game around) was overturned on no evidence at all as far as I can tell. There were a few terrible, terrible calls this week. A roughing the passer penalty on third down because a D-lineman got his hand on the QB’s shoulder as he threw, and then didn’t do anything. He realized he got the ball away, and he just had his hand on his shoulder. Didn’t throw him, didn’t even push him, just had his hand resting on the guy’s shoulder. Roughing the passer. You literally cannot touch the damn QB anymore. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/99 "2006-10-09T06:05:07Z")
[QUOTE=Omniscient] and one play. Going for the end zone would have been dumber because kicking the FG after the onside kick requires an extra play and an extra TO you usually don’t have. I’m going to assume this isn’t a spread covering play. [/QUOTE] You may be right. I’m not sure on the exact details, but we were in field goal range with about 50 seconds left. If we’d have elected to do it there, I’d agree that’s what was being done. But we ran some plays, and ran it down to 15 secods, then did it. And then we didn’t onside kick - we did a pooch kick. I guess the logic was, with under 10 seconds left, that our only chance was having the returning team fumble and run it in for a touchdown. It might’ve been stupid coaching and game clock managing - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time - but the peculiar way it happened immediately made me think we were playing to cover the spread. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120/100 "2006-10-09T12:11:22Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] If a guy is getting tackled, the ground can’t cause a fumble because when he hits, he’s down. But if a guy just falls over, without being touched, and he fumbles when his arm hits the ground, that’s a fumble, right? [/QUOTE] Yes, that’s the rule as I understand it. Didn’t see the play, but unless there was some evidence that contact with another player led to him falling down (even if he wasn’t still touching him while he was down) it sounds like a bad call to overturn it. > [@](#): > > You may be right. I’m not sure on the exact details, but we were in field goal range with about 50 seconds left. If we’d have elected to do it there, I’d agree that’s what was being done. But we ran some plays, and ran it down to 15 secods, then did it. And then we didn’t onside kick - we did a pooch kick. I guess the logic was, with under 10 seconds left, that our only chance was having the returning team fumble and run it in for a touchdown. > > It might’ve been stupid coaching and game clock managing - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time - but the peculiar way it happened immediately made me think we were playing to cover the spread. My guess is that they didn’t trust the kicker to make the FG from whatever distance they were at with 50 seconds left and decided to try and get closer. Unfortunately they did a bad job of it and took too much time and too many plays. That left them with their only hoping being the squib/fumble recovery that you proposed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-2006-weekly-predictions/372120.md?page=6)